Haha, you really don't know your stuff. Undergrad are we? The first argument is obviously deductively valid. I laid it out as a series of syllogisms just so that you could see this. And you do not have 8 premises to question. Christ! You have 4. Think about it.

Now, each argument was deductively valid, yes?
And they are also sound. Deal.

"But you made a typo in your first premise, so I win and your argument is stupid and dumb and just so stupid. So there."

What's next is the sinking feeling that you are massively out of your depth followed by humiliation and an about turn in which you reject my case 'because'it is valid. That's my bet anyway.

You accept, then, that this is valid:

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason, then they all have a single source: Reason
2. Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason
3. Therefore moral imperatives have a single source: Reason

And you accept as well that this is valid:

1. If something is issuing imperatives, then it is a mind
2. Reason issues imperatives
3. Therefore Reason is a mind

And you accept as well that this is valid:

1. If Reason is a mind, then Reason is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (God)
2. Reason is a mind
3. Therefore, Reason is God.

And you accept that this is valid:

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason, then they are imperatives of God
2. Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason
3. Therefore moral imperatives are imperatives of God

Or you don't as you don't know what you are talking about. Slink off, that's my advice.

no, answer the question. I want to know the level of arrogantium ignorantium thickium I am dealing with. Is that argument form valid?

You don't sound like someone who knows what they are talking about.

Do you agree that this is deductively valid:

1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore q

By 4 the game is up. That is, once it is established that Reason is a person, then divine command theory is true (for Reason would be a god).
But if you want to know why the person of Reason would have the three omni properties, it's because she will be the source of all the laws of logic, and the source of all justifications, and the source of all moral value. As the source of the laws of logic she will be the arbiter of what is and isn't possible and thus will be capable of doing anything. As the arbiter of justifications she will be all knowing for her will constitutively determines whether a proposition is justified; and as the source of moral value she will be morally perfect as she will value herself.

Tell me what it means, logic virgin.

It's deductively valid. It has already been formulated. If you don't know that it is deductively valid it's because you don't know what that means.

You mean a deductively valid argument that responds directly to the op? Go away Banno and regurgitate half understood Stanford pages to others.

It is deductively valid. It'd be stupid not to notice.

We are temporary, changing “patterns” who should be held responsible for our actions, because each individual pattern has its own tendencies regarding action. — Paul Michael

That's semantics - what you're calling a 'pattern' is just 'the self'. Or you mean it literally, in which case it seems you are making a category error. I am not a pattern. Maybe I 'have' a pattern - there may be a pattern to my attitudes for instance. But 'having' a pattern is not the same as 'being' one.
Note too, that if patterns change, then there needs to be something that is undergoing the change or you're once more back with releasing criminals and escaping debts and so on (phone up your bank and explain to them that the pattern to whom they lent the money no longer exists and thus that you - this current pattern - owe them nothing and see how that goes).

Why start with a view of the self? Why not just follow what reason tells you and I about the matter? If you start out with a view, then all you're going to do is look for reasons to believe it and reject refutations of it for no better reason than that they are refutations of it.

It is clear that you are not me and I am not you. So we are distinct things. And it is clear that you are not your mental states, for those can be very different at one time to another time, yet they are no less your mental states for that (and that remains true whether they instantiate a pattern or not). And it is clear that you are not your sensible body, for every molecule of it can be replaced - and is commonly believed to be replaced every 7 years - without that meaning that you have been replaced. And your sensible body can be divided, whereas your self cannot be.

And so it is clear, if one listens to what one's reason and the reason of others tells us about our selves and resists the temptation to start out with a view about it, that our selves are distinct existences and are not our sensible bodies, but something else entirely.

And as it makes no sense to think the self can be divided, we can conclude further that the self is a simple thing (for if it had parts it could, in principle, be divided into them). And as a simple thing does not occupy space - for were it to do so, then it would be divisible and thus not simple - the self is thus an immaterial thing.

This view, note, is not one that I have started with, but rather it is a conclusion. And needless to say, it is entirely compatible with idealism and actually leads to it.

Do you think that convicted criminals should be released as there is no persisting self for us to punish and so, in effect, the person in prison is not the same person who committed the crime?

The self and its persistence are among the most self-evidently real of existences, and so the job of work is to explain, not deny such matters. And if one cannot explain such matters, it is fallacious to infer on that basis that no such persistent self exists. I cannot explain how my computer works, but that is not evidence against it working - it is clearly working.

Not being able to explain how something is the case is not evidence against it being the case. And as Descartes emphasized, you should not reject the more self evident on the basis of the less. Any argument against the self will have premises less self-evidently true than the self-evident existence of the self and will thus violate Descartes' dictum

Technically he says we’re the same universal consciousness or “core subjectivity” but we’re unique dissociated alters or localizations of it. — Paul Michael

Yes, but that's just a convoluted way of saying that you're me and I'm you. He can't just say "You're me and I'm you" because then everyone would know immediately that his view is false. He needs to say it more obscurely so that it's falsity isn't quite so obvious.

But he is saying that I am you and you are me, yes? (or is he saying that I am you and you are me and I am not you and you are not me? In which case that's a contradiction and his view is false for that reason instead).

And that is false.

And so his view is false.

No more need be said on the matter, for as Aristotle counselled, one should not support stronger claims with weaker ones. And that I am not you and you not me is about as strong as it gets.

If you are interested in Idealism then you should read Berkeley, not a hack like Katsick.

I hope not — Paul Michael

He says I am though, right? If we're all one, then I'm you and you're me.

There. Doesn't that refute it?

1. If Katsick's view is true, then I am you and you are me.
2. I am not you and you are not me
3. Therefore Katsick's view is false.

So I am you?

My view is expressed in the conclusion of the argument I gave above

1. Moral imperatives are imperatives of reason
2. Imperatives of reason have a single source: Reason
3. Only a mind issues imperatives
4. Therefore, moral imperatives are the imperatives of a single mind
5. The single mind whose imperatives are the imperatives of reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (God). — Bartricks

As that argument is deductively valid it will, if sound, refute all other views about the matter.

You have not refuted it. You have confused imperatives of Reason with our faculties of reason and then proceeded to insist that we ourselves are the sources of moral imperatives, a view that entails Hitler did nothing wrong and is thus absurd in the extreme.

My view is, clearly, a form of divine command theory and, where moral imperatives are concerned, it is equivalent to William of Ockham's. But you cannot refute a view by categorizing it or identifying it with one Ockham defended.

The view that moral imperatives are our imperatives entails Hitler did nothing wrong. It is thus absurd and can be rejected (and there are plenty more reasons to reject it, but that will do).

The view that moral imperatives are somehow being emitted by the mindless natural world (metaethical objectivist naturalism) is downright potty.

The view that moral imperatives are somehow being emitted by Platonic Forms is equally potty.

So, again, to refute my argument you must either deny that moral imperatives are imperatives - which is conceptually confused - or deny that moral imperatives have their source in Reason - which is also conceptually confused - or deny that imperatives need a mind to issue them - which is insane. There's no way out. My argument goes through and establishes both that morality is God's commands and that Reason is God and that God exists.

,to be clear, ......Hitler......
— Bartricks

Please, goodness, not him again. — Cuthbert

Why not? Individual and collectivist subjectivists about morality think Hitler did nothing wrong (if they have any coherent thoughts at all). That's outrageous. They should be outed for the idiots they are.

I think spirit-salamander 's idea is that there are lots of minds, some of which (at least) are capable of using the faculty of reason. So reason's being a single source of some thing does not entail that a single mind is the source of that thing. — Cuthbert

He's confused. He didn't read the argument carefully and consequently he has started to blather on about faculties of reason, even though the argument was about imperatives of Reason. Faculties of reason are not imperatives, but faculties - means of awareness.

There are sights and then there is sight. Sights are what you see with sight. Sight is the faculty and sights are what you see with it. Reasons - including imperatives of Reason - are what faculties of reason give us some awareness of. Imperatives of reason, then, are among the rational sights that our reason - our rational sight - gives us some awareness of.

But the likes of Salamander and, I'd wager, 99.9% of everyone else on this site, cannot keep hold of the difference and conflate the means of awareness with the object of awareness. And then they all conclude that morality is something we ourselves make and then have to say that Hitler did nothing wrong.

They reason like this (if they reason at all): "I am aware of moral imperatives by means of my mind, therefore morality is in my mind! I am the source of morality" Or they reason "I have been caused to have my moral beliefs by my mind.....therefore, morality is in my mind!"

It's very silly. But once someone commits these fallacies - and they're known as the subjectivist fallacies - and arrive at their outrageously stupid view that morality is in our gift and is a creation of our own minds, you can't get them out of it. For most people cannot accept that they can be that stupid. It's why they should teach metaethics in schools and not stupid things like French or algebra.

I dispute this premise because it seems to me to be ontologically ambiguous. — spirit-salamander

Why did you put the word 'ontologically' in there?

Here, the mundane reason of everyone can be meant (every human being is endowed with the faculty to reason) or already the divine reason (there is in principle only one reason, which does not belong to any human being). The former you consider absurd, because otherwise Hitler would have done nothing wrong. If the latter, you already presuppose what you want to prove. — spirit-salamander

Er, what are you on about? The premise is talking about the 'imperatives' of reason. You have just ignored that and decided to start talking about faculties of reason! Stop doing that. Focus on what the premises actually say.

Faculties of reason are not imperatives of Reason! Faculties of reason are faculties of awareness. Big difference.

But the former does not imply that Hitler did nothing wrong. It does not follow from it. Indeed, he acted against his moral reason, the principle of which is: to treat every human being at least also as an end in itself. — spirit-salamander

Er, that's not what Hitler thought. And you think that Hitler himself determines what it is morally right or wrong for Hitler to do. Or do you not understand your own view?

If moral standards are external to Hitler - and they are - then they are not 'his'. He is not their source. Hitler is not the source of the moral imperatives that apply to Hitler and that he flouted. It's wrong to be a racist holocauster, is it not? And it is wrong even if Hitler approves of being one and commands himself to be one, right? And so......your view is wrong. Morality doesn't come from Hitler! Jesus.

Don't tell me you think what Hitler did is wrong and then at the same time express a view about the nature of morality that entails he did nothing wrong.

Moral imperatives apply to us, but do not come from us. And the same goes for all of the imperatives of Reason.

And we call them 'imperatives of Reason' because they come from.....you guessed it, Reason!

And we are 'aware' of these imperatives via our faculties of reason. Which are 'faculties' not commands.

Now, if you think Hitler did something wrong, then you do not think that Hitler was the source of the morality of his actions, yes? Because - breaking news - Hitler approved of what he did.

You still don't know my whole view. So you can't call it stupid. You still have a lot to learn about how to discuss philosophically in a dialogue. — spirit-salamander

I know enough to know that your view is stupid. It entails that Hitler did nothing wrong. That's very silly.

Refute the argument or go and be confused elsewhere.
And this was not a good talk. It was unpleasant. Very.

Refute the argument. The one that shows you don't believe in God and don't understand God.

Refute the argument. Atheist.

Just refute the argument. Stop telling me about what arguments do. I make them for a living. Refute the argument, punk.

That's not an argument. My argument refutes your view - it shows it to be nonsense. Your response "but it's my view!" over and over again. Yes, I know it is. And it does not make sense. It's not God you believe in, but some hobbled creature who can't divest itself of any of the powers it has. So you don't believe in God, you believe in Midas.

But, but, but, it's my view. God means x, y and z and so the person who satisfies x, y and z can't ever possibly not have x, y, and z, just like bachelors don't have the ability to marry. It's my view. You've explained to me why its stupid, but it's my view and I hold it in my mind and it's mine and so there.

God isn't mentioned in the premises. Refute the argument. Don't just keep reiterating your hopeless confusion over the word God and its occult power to bind God.

Psst, you don't have a case or a clue or, it seems, the ability to focus.

God isn't mentioned in the premises. You are confusing a label with a person and flagrantly begging the question.

Focus on the argument. You have said premise 2 is false. Show it to be.

Note, being less than all powerful is a thing - we are less than all powerful. So it is not 'no thing'.

And being unable to make yourself less powerful is an inability. It is not an ability. It is an inability. Midas could not stop himself from turning things gold. That was an inability.

Now, show me that premise 2 is false. Don't just assert your view. Your view has been demonstrated to be false - incoherent nonsense- by my little argument. So refute it.

How is it a contradiction? Provide the argument.

Which premise are you denying?

Er, where's your argument?

You think you saying stuff is an argument? You think telling me my view is contentious is a refutation? You think contentious views are false views?

Now, don't reply unless you have a reply to this argument - an argument that refutes your ignorant view:

1. If a person is omnipotent, they are able to do anything
2. If a person cannot divest themselves of some power,they are unable to do something
3. Therefore, if a person is omnipotent they are able to divest themselves of some power.

Bow out. That's my advice.

No, mate, you haven't. You have just asserted, on the basis of no argument, that the person of God - so, God - is essentially omnipotent. That's false because it is incoherent.

Then you have simply told me that my view is contentious. Ooooo, will the contentios come and get me?

Now, chum, argue something. Or point out that I am a mean and nasty person who bullies people by refuting their arguments without mercy.

Argue something!

Oh good point. Bravo. Excellent argument. You reason soooooo well.

That's just a convoluted way of asserting once more that an omnipotent person is essentially omnipotent, a claim that is incoherent - as I explained a billion times to no avail - and unsupported.

Do you have any actual arguments for anything you are saying?

How do you know that?

Yes! Of course I do.

Yes it does.

Once more: omnipotence is a property of a person.

It essentially involves being able to do anything.

That doesn't mean that it is essential to the person who has it that they can do anything.

You are just reasoning really badly.

You are thinking Tim must essentially be unmarried - that he could not be Tim and have a wife.

And when I point out your very poor reasoning all you do is insist that the person of God is essentially omnipotent! No argument. Just an assertion.

And a demonstrably false one for it is incoherent. Once more,for the thousandth time, if you are essentially omnipotent that means you can't cease to be. Which is an inability!!!!!! Which is incompatible with being able to do anything. Sheesh, my cat can vaguely understand this, so what - what - is your major malfunction buddio?

Which premise in my argument do you deny? Stop begging the question by making arbitrary pronouncements and stop ignoring the fact your view has the idiotic upshot that Hitler did nothing wrong.

This is a philosophy forum. Learn to argue. Learn to focus on premises. No premise of mine mentions our faculties of reason. And again, your view that we are the source of moral commands means Hitler did nothing wrong. Which is stupid, yes? That's your view. Your view is stupid. Demonstrably stupid.

And now you think your faculty of reason 'is' reason. So Hitler's was Hitler's, yes? So he did nothing wrong. That's your view. It's stupid.

Shall I help you?

If you deny that moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason, then you show only that you are conceptually confused.

If you insist that we are Reason, then Hitler did nothing wrong, which is dumb.

If you insist that something that is not a mind can issue an imperative, then you are bonkers.

Thus, there is no non-dumb sane way to avoid my conclusion. Which is why it is a proof. A proof, that is, that Reason is a person.

No, omnipotence is a property a person can have. But it is not had essentially by any person, as having it involves being able to do anything, including ceasing to be omnipotent.

You are profoundly confused. Your reasoning is exactly the same as someone who reasons that as Tim is a bachelor and it is essential to being a bachelor that one lacks a wife Tim essentially lacks a wife. That's fallacious.

I haven't the faintest idea what you mean.

You are confused. God is essentially omnipotent just as bachelor's are essentially unmarried. That's means is that it is necessary to qualify as God that one be omnipotent and that it is necessary to qualify as a bachelor that one is an unmarried male. It does not mean that the person who is God is essentially omnipotent. That's as dumb as thinking that a person who is a bachelor - Tim, say is essentially unmarried.

If God can't stop being God, he's not omnipotent because there's something he can't do!!!!!!!!!

Why are you talking about a faculty of reason? We are talking about the imperatives of Reason.
Now, your view entails that Hitler did nothing wrong. Which is stupid. Hitler was a jerk. Your view is false and now you are going to change the topic from imperatives of reason to faculties of reason.

Hitler is an excellent example. According to Salamander's view, Hitler did nothing wrong. That's silly.